Protocol for detecting intracellular aggregations in Arabidopsis thaliana cell wall mutants using FM4-64 staining
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we present a step-by step protocol to visualize intracellular aggregations in Arabidopsis mutants with cell wall secretion defects using FM4-64, a lipophilic styryl dye. We describe steps for growing seedlings, staining them with FM4-64, and identifying intracellular aggregates in cell wall synthesis and/or secretion mutants in root and hypocotyl epidermal cells via confocal microscopy. Additionally, we provide troubleshooting suggestions for common pitfalls. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Hoffmann and McFarlane. 1 • Protocol to detect intracellular aggregates in Arabidopsis cell wall synthesis/secretion mutants • Instructions for staining and imaging aggregations in live root or hypocotyl cells • Guidance and troubleshooting on distinguishing aggregations from common artifacts Publisher’s note: Undertaking any experimental protocol requires adherence to local institutional guidelines for laboratory safety and ethics. Here, we present a step-by step protocol to visualize intracellular aggregations in Arabidopsis mutants with cell wall secretion defects using FM4-64, a lipophilic styryl dye. We describe steps for growing seedlings, staining them with FM4-64, and identifying intracellular aggregates in cell wall synthesis and/or secretion mutants in root and hypocotyl epidermal cells via confocal microscopy. Additionally, we provide troubleshooting suggestions for common pitfalls.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it